DCEco - Habitat Survey

7/30/2019 DCEco - Habitat Survey

1/31

Dunbar Community Wind Turbine

Ecological Impact Assessment


2/31

BLANK PAGE


3/31

Issuing office

The William Elder Building | 56-58 Castlegate | Berwick-upon-Tweed | TD15 1JT

T: 01289 302004 | W: www.bsg-ecology.com | E: [email protected]

Client Locogen Ltd

Job Dunbar Community Wind Turbine

Report title Ecological Impact Assessment

Draft version/final FINAL

File reference 6084_R_sb_gc_011012.docx

Name Position Date

Originated John Woods Ecologist 22 March 2012

Reviewed Steven Betts Partner 22 March 2012

Revised Steven Betts Partner 1 October 2012

A d f


4/31


Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 74 Assessment .............................................................................................................................................. 145 Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 216 References ............................................................................................................................................... 227 Appendix 1: Desk study data .................................................................................................................... 238 Appendix 2: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map ................................................................................................ 259 Appendix 3: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes ................................................................................... 26 10 Appendix 4: Site Photographs .................................................................................................................. 27


5/31


1 Introduction

Site Description

1.1 The proposed wind turbine development is located near the summit of Cocklaw Hill, East Lothian,approximately 1.4km to the north-west of Cocklaw and 8km to the south-east of Dunbar. The studyarea comprises several improved pastoral fields and two arable fields. A predominantly coniferousplantation is also present approximately 550m to the east of the proposed turbine location. Fieldboundaries are defined by fences with no hedgerows present. The nearest buildings within thestudy area are at Cocklaw farm to the south-east. The proposed turbine location is shown onFigure 1.


6/31


Aims of Study

1.5 The aim of this study was to assess the ecological interest of the area that will be affected by theproposed development. This area was surveyed to identify any ecological constraints that willneed to be taken into account during the construction and operation of the wind turbine. Inparticular, the study has focussed on the need to minimise impacts on protected species, protectedhabitats and designated sites.

Defining the Scope of the Study

1.6 Baker Shepherd Gillespie has considerable experience in carrying out ecological impactassessments for wind farm sites. This experience ranges from single turbine developments up to a27 turbine scheme in northern Scotland. The scope of the assessment has been defined bydrawing upon this experience. The scope of the ecological impact assessment (EcIA) has been

defined such that it encompasses the following elements: A description of the habitats and vegetation, based on a Phase 1 habitat survey, and an

assessment of how they will be affected by the proposed development;

Consideration of how the development would affect nearby sites with statutory and non-

statutory nature conservation designations, and the species using those sites;

An assessment of the presence and distribution of protected species and other species of

conservation concern, and how they will be affected;

Presentation of mitigation measures designed to minimise the impact of the development onthose protected species or habitats present within or adjacent to the site.

1.7 The study area covers all aspects of the proposed development, including the turbine location andthe access route, together with a buffer area around the development footprint.


7/31


2 Methodology

Desk Study

2.1 A desk study has been undertaken using data obtained from the Scottish Natural Heritageprotected sites database (http://www.snh.org.uk/snhi/) and the Joint Nature ConservationCommittees protected sites database (www.jncc.org.uk) to establish the location and nature of anystatutory designated sites of nature conservation interest located within 2km of the centre of theproposed development area. This includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), SpecialAreas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

2.2 A 2km search area has been adopted in accordance with guidance published by the Institute of

Environmental Assessment (1997). This search area has been adopted as it represents themaximum distance over which impacts (direct or indirect) might be expected to occur. Furthermoreit is considered unlikely that most species that may be encountered within the site (based on anassessment of the habitats that are present) will travel more than 2km when commuting orforaging. Consequently it is unlikely that there will be significant interactions with species usingsites more than 2km from the proposed development site.

2.3 The exception to this is birds, which may commute over larger distances. For this reason thesearch area has been extended to include the nearest SPAs to the wind turbine site.

2.4 A search has also been made for records of statutorily protected and Biodiversity Action Plan(BAP) species using the National Biodiversity Network database (www.searchnbn.net). Historicalrecords have been requested from The Wildlife Information Centre (Lothians and the Borders). Inaddition, reference has been made to the UK and East Lothian Biodiversity Action Plans, whichidentify a number of species and habitats that are of conservation importance at the national andCounty levels. The South-East Scotland Bird Atlas (www.the-soc.org.uk/se-atlas) has also beenexamined to identify records or rare or notable bird species within the study area.

2.5 An aerial photograph of the site and its surroundings was examined to further assist inunderstanding the context of the site and to identify and assess possible habitat linkages with other

habitats or sites of ecological importance within the local area


8/31


Bats

2.9 The closest buildings and structures to the proposed turbine location are the aerial masts 170mand 260m to the north-east. Neither of the structures and their associated electrical buildings areconsidered to have potential to support roosting bats. They are also situation with poor qualityhabitat for foraging bats.

2.10 The nearest buildings with any bat roost potential are at Cocklaw farm steading, which isapproximately 1.4km to the south-east of the proposed turbine location. The farm steading isseparated from the proposed wind turbine location by improved pasture fields, two strips ofwoodland plantation and an arable field. A building assessment was carried out by an experiencedbat surveyor (see Section 2.2.5).

2.11 All mature trees present within or near the proposed development site were inspected for theirpotential to support roosting bats. Features suitable for roosting bats include flaking bark, rotholes, cracks and splits in major limbs, and woodpecker holes (BCT, 2007). These features areoften associated with semi-mature and mature trees, which are present within parts of the site.

2.12 Trees that are found to have obvious features with good roosting potential, such as woodpeckerholes, have been rated as having high risk. Trees with features that may have some potential forsupporting small numbers of bats, such as flaking or loose bark, have been rated as havingmoderate potential for bats. All other trees are considered to have low risk.

Reptiles

2.13 The study area contains habitats that are considered to be unsuitable for reptiles due to the highlevel of disturbance that they experience. The study area is dominated by pasture farmland that issubject to regular disturbance as a result of grazing and grassland management. Consequently itis concluded that reptiles are unlikely to be present in the area that will be affected by thedevelopment and have not been considered further within this report.

Great crested newts

2.14 During the Phase 1 Habitat Survey a man-made pond was identified to the south-east of the

proposed wind turbine location and this was assessed to determine its suitability to support great


9/31


Breeding Bird Assessment

2.16 Breeding bird surveys are normally undertaken during the period from April to June. As this surveyvisit was undertaken during March, a full breeding bird survey (which normally comprises aminimum of three visits) has not been carried out. As the site is considered to be relatively poor forbreeding birds due to the habitats present, the approach that has been adopted within this report isto assess the sites potential to support breeding birds based on the types and quality of thehabitats present and using information gathered from a walkover survey. All habitats within thestudy area were assessed to determine their likely potential to support breeding birds.

Wintering Bird Assessment

2.17 The application site lies approximately 10km to the south-east of the Firth of Forth SPA, which isdesignated for its internationally important non-breeding bird assemblage, including wintering pink-footed geese. For this reason the desk study has been extended to include an evaluation of pink-footed goose activity in the area around the development site, as pink-footed geese are known torange over large distances when searching for feeding sites.

2.18 This information has been complemented by an assessment of the development sites potential tosupport feeding geese. The sites suitability for feeding geese was evaluated by considering thehabitats and vegetation present, the topography of the land, the levels of disturbance, landmanagement and other relevant factors. During the walkover survey a search was also made forsigns of goose presence, such as droppings.

Surveyor

2.19 All survey work has been carried out by Steven Betts CEnv MIEEM, who is an experiencedecologist who has worked on a number of renewable energy developments in Scotland andNorthern England.


10/31


3 Results

Desk Study

Statutory Designated Sites

Lammermuir Deans SSSI

3.1 Lammermuir Deans Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is the only statutory designated wildlifesite located within 2km of the proposed development site: the site is located more than 1km to thesouth-west of the proposed wind turbine location. The SSSI is designated for the habitatscontained within several steep valleys, which are the most extensive and least modified cleughs

(gorges) incised through calciferous rocks in East Lothian. The description of species and habitatscited for Lammermuir Deans SSSI is provided below.

3.2 The cleughs contain deciduous woodland which is uncommon in the context of the surroundingheath and grassland. The woodlands are mixed, with ash Fraxinus excelsior, oak Quercusspp.,birch Betula spp., hazel Corylus avellana, rowan Sorbus aucuparia and other species. JuniperJuniperus communisis common in some areas.

3.3 Calcareous (mineral-rich) grasslands are found at Lammermuir Deans which includes sheeps-fescue Festuca ovinaand common bent Agrostis capillaris. These are common species in the UK

but this particular habitat type is rare and declining in the context of East Lothian.

3.4 Valley fen marsh habitats are also rare and declining in East Lothian, and the Lammermuir Deanscontain a mix of fen habitats dominated by soft rush Juncus effusus and sharp-flowered rushJuncus acutiflorus and contain the rare plants hairy stonecrop Sedum villosum and grass-of-parnassus Parnassia palustris.

3.5 These cleughs also support a number of rare mosses, liverworts and lichens such as the rarelichen Graphis elegans.

Firth of Forth SPA SSSI and Ramsar site


11/31


3.11 The Firth of Forth SPA further qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting a winteringwaterfowl assemblage of European importance: a 1992/93-96/97 winter peak mean of 95,000waterfowl, comprising 45,000 wildfowl and 50,000 waders. This assemblage includes nationallyimportant numbers of 15 migratory species: great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus (720; 7% ofGB), cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo(682; 5% of GB), scaup Aythya marila(437; 4% of GB), eider

Somateria mollissima(9,400; 13% of GB), long-tailed duck Clangula hyemalis(1,045; 4% of GB),common scoter Melanitta nigra (2,880; 8% of GB), velvet scoter M. fusca (635; 21% of GB),goldeneye Bucephala clangula (3,004; 18% of GB population), red-breasted merganser Mergusserrator(670; 7% of GB), oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus(7,846; 2% of GB), ringed ploverCharadrius hiaticula (328; 1% of GB), grey plover Pluvialis squatarola (724; 2% of GB), dunlinCalidris alpina (9,514; 2% of GB), and curlew Numenius arquata (1,928; 2% of GB). Theassemblage also includes large numbers of the following species: wigeon Anas penelope (2,139[1991/2-95/96]), mallard A. platyrhynchos (2,564 [1991/2-95/96]) and lapwing Vanellus vanellus(4,148 [1991/2-95/96]).

Non-Statutory Designated Sites

3.12 The Wildlife Information Centre provided information on local wildlife sites within 2km of theproposed development. All identified local wildlife sites are managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust.Identified local wildlife sites are described below.

3.13 Cauld burn, which is 340m to the south-west of the proposed turbine location, is the closest localwildlife site to the proposed development. The site comprises a small area of remnant woodland ofwhat was once a larger woodland in a cleugh.

3.14 Aikengall Glen, which is more than 800m west of the development, is a steep-sided valley formedby erosion of the surrounding conglomerate rock type. The glen supports a mixture of grassland,woodland and wetland habitat. Much of the east side of the glen is covered with gorse. Somegrassy flushes run down the glen side supporting fairy flax Linum catharticumdevils bit scabiousSuccisa pratensis and butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris. The surrounding area comprises neutralgrassland with abundant field mouse-ear Cerastium arvense.

3.15 Dunglass Burn, which is 1.5km south-east of the proposed development, is in a deep ravinesurrounded by grassland, gorse and scattered scrub. Aller Bog is located more than 1km to the

th f th d i d t bi l ti Th t B th 1k th t d


12/31


Field Survey

3.18 The results of the Phase 1 Habitat Survey are described below. For clarity the descriptions havebeen divided up into the broad habitat types that have been identified within the site. A Phase 1Habitat Survey map is presented in Appendix 2 with target notes (TN) presented in Appendix 3.Photographs of the site are presented in Appendix 4.

Habitat description

3.19 The field, within which the wind turbine will be located, together with the fields adjacent to the north,south, east and west, are improved grassland. Field boundaries are defined by fences there areno intact hedgerows.

3.20 More than 790m to the south-east of the proposed wind turbine location there is a large coniferplantation with occasional mature oak trees around the perimeter. There is improved grasslandbetween the wind turbine location and this woodland, and also between the wind turbine locationand a second smaller plantation woodland 470m to the south.

Improved grassland

3.21 The proposed wind turbine will be constructed in an improved grassland field located near thesummit of Cocklaw Hill. The grassland has low species diversity, the sward being dominated bycrested dogs tail Cynosurus cristatus and perennial rye grass Lolium perenne. Occasionallypresent are creeping bent Agrostis stolonifera, broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius and white

clover Trifolium repens(see Appendix 3, TN6). Herb species are very sparse. An extensive patchof soft rush Juncus effusus is present in the south-eastern corner of the field within which theproposed wind turbine will be located (more than 400m from the turbine location).

3.22 The adjacent fields on all sides are also improved grassland with similar species composition.Occasional soft rush is present in the south-east corner of the turbine field. Scattered gorse Ulexeuropaeusis present in the field to the north, more than 230m from the wind turbine location at itsnearest point.

Waterbodies


13/31


Broadleaved woodland

3.27 A broadleaved woodland is located more than 1.2km to the south-east of the proposed turbinelocation, and this comprises a mixture of mature and semi-mature oak trees, occasional coniferoustrees and scattered gorse scrub. The woodland is confined to a small incised valley feature with a

watercourse flowing at the bottom (see Appendix 3, TN3).

Mixed woodland

3.28 A young mixed plantation woodland is present approximately 780m to the south-east of theproposed turbine location (see Appendix 3, TN5). All trees in this plantation are less than 3m inheight.

Arable

3.29 Arable fields are present within the survey area, the nearest one to the proposed wind turbinelocation being 650m to the south. Other arable fields are located near Cocklaw farm steading. Atthe time of survey the arable fields appeared to have recently been ploughed and so no arableweeds or grasses were evident.

Structures and Buildings

3.30 The nearest structures and buildings to the proposed wind turbine location are at Cocklaw farm,approximately 1.6km to the south-east. The farm steading comprises a bungalow, a mobile home

and a series of barns and workshop. The bungalow has a shallow pitched roof covered with tilesand rendered exterior walls with barge boards around the eaves. It is possible that this roofconstruction style may provide roosting opportunities for bats, but the building was not closelyinspected to confirm this.

3.31 Adjacent to the bungalow is a mobile home, which is of standard panel construction with no gaps offeatures that could be used by roosting bats. The surrounding barns and workshops are clad withcorrugated sheeting or planks or are open-sided (Dutch style). No features with bat roost potentialwere identified, although a detailed examination was not carried out.

P t t d i


14/31


3.36 The land around the proposed wind turbine location is improved grassland, which is considered toprovide limited foraging opportunities for bats (see Walsh & Harris 1996a,b). Consequently itsvalue as a feeding area or commuting route for bats is likely to be low. It is therefore consideredunlikely that bats will regularly fly near the proposed turbine location.

Otter

3.37 During the survey of the man-made pond to the south-east of the proposed wind turbine location,an old otter spraint was found near the eastern end. Analysis of the spraint suggests the otter hadbeen feeding on small mammals and fish.

3.38 The survey data indicate that otter is probably an infrequent visitor to the pond, as the surroundinghabitat provides very limited sheltering opportunities. It is very unlikely that otter would move northfrom the pond towards the wind turbine location.

Great crested newts

3.39 The pond located to the south-east of the wind turbine location is surrounded by improvedgrassland with many soft rush tussocks. The marginal vegetation did not significantly overshadowthe pond. Aquatic plants growing in the pond include floating sweet-grass and starwort, both ofwhich may potentially be used by newts for egg laying.

3.40 The presence of heavily grazed improved grassland around the pond has led to the conclusion thatthe pond water is likely to be eutrophic (some floc-forming algae was present, which supports this

view). Although adult great crested newts can be relatively tolerant of eutrophic conditions, theireggs and larvae are likely to be more vulnerable to changes in dissolved oxygen levels etc.

3.41 No waterfowl were recorded on the pond. Analysis of otter spraint located next to the pondindicated that the otter had consumed fish, which may therefore be present in the pond. Fishpresence reduces the suitability of the pond for newts because some fish predate great crestednewts.

3.42 No other ponds are present within at least 1km of this pond, which means that it is an isolatedwaterbody. Furthermore the surrounding grassland provides very limited opportunities for newt

f i d h lt i S it bl t f i dl h bit t i il bl i th b d dl d


15/31


3.47 Examination of the South-East Scotland Bird Atlas (www.the-soc.org.uk/se-atlas) indicates thatpink-footed geese have not been recorded in the tetrad (NT77A) within which the proposed windturbine will be located. This species has not been recorded in any of the neighbouring tetradseither, the nearest records being more than 4km away to the west and north-west. The same isalso true for greylag goose, which is typically present in much smaller numbers in the wider area.

Breeding birds: incidental records

3.48 A number of common farmland bird species were recorded at Cocklaw farm steading, both withinthe farm and within the adjacent coniferous plantation. By comparison very few birds wererecorded in the fields within the study area.

3.49 At Cocklaw farm steading the following species were recorded: jackdaw Corvus monedula, woodpigeon Columba palumbus, blackbird Turdus merula, chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, robin Erithacusrubecula, blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus, wren Troglodytes troglodytesand great tit Parus major. Apair of grey partridge Perdix perdixwas observed in a field just to the north of the farm steading.Coal tit Periparus aterwas observed in the woodland adjacent to the farm steading.

3.50 Coal tit was also observed in the coniferous plantation 790m to the south-east of the proposedturbine location (see Appendix 3, TN1). Wood pigeon, magpie Pica pica, wren, chaffinch, great titand pheasant Phasianus colchicus(rearing pens are present) were also recorded in this plantation.

3.51 In the ploughed field to the east of this plantation at TN2 was a lapwing and a flock ofapproximately 12 meadow pipit Anthus pratensis. Jackdaw, magpie, and common gull Larus canus

were observed in other fields within the study area.

3.52 Of the species recorded on site during the survey, grey partridge and lapwing are included on theBirds of Conservation Concern (BOCC Eaton et al., 2009) Red List. Common gull and meadowpipit are included on the Amber List. The Birds of Conservation Concern listing assesses birdspecies on the basis of their population status, reflecting changes in their abundance and range atthe national scale. The BOCC listing categorises birds according to their conservation status asfollows.

3.53 Red List species are of high nature conservation concern and are those that:

Gl b ll Th t d di t i t ti l (IUCN) it i


16/31


3.57 The closest trees with canopies dense enough to support nesting birds are in the plantationslocated 280m to the west, 470m south and 790m south-east (TN1, see Appendix 3) of theproposed turbine location. Mature trees at the incised valley feature (TN3), more than 1km to thesouth-east, also have potential to support breeding birds. Additional trees with potential to supportnesting birds are present near Cocklaw farm steading, and the steading buildings may be used by

nesting swallows Hirundo rustica and/or house martins Delichon urbicum, but this was notconfirmed at the time of the site visit.

3.58 The fields around the proposed turbine location are not bordered by hedgerows or species-richfield margins, and habitat connectivity is poor. Greater habitat connectivity and better nesting andfeeding opportunities are likely to be present in areas of woodland to the south-east of theproposed development. This habitat, however, is more than 790m from the proposed wind turbinelocation.

Other Species

3.59 Brown hare Lepus europaeuswas recorded on the east side of the plantation located to the east ofthe wind turbine location (Appendix 2, TN2). It is likely that this species will also use the grasslandhabitat in the field within which the proposed wind turbine will be located.

3.60 No signs of other protected species were recorded during the site visits. Hedgehog Erinaceuseuropaeusmay be present in areas of denser vegetation, such as the plantation woodland, but nosuitable habitat is present in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbine location. No evidence wasfound during the survey to confirm that this species is present.

3.61 Common frog Rana temporaria spawn was identified within the man-made pond located to thesouth-east of the proposed wind turbine location.


17/31


4 Assessment

Constraints on Study Information

4.1 All parts of the site were fully accessed during the survey and a detailed and thorough siteinspection has been carried out. Although the survey work was carried out during the late winter, itwas nevertheless possible to thoroughly evaluate the habitats present as they are all species-poor,heavily impacted farmland habitats. The survey was carried out in good weather conditions.

4.2 It was not possible to carry out a breeding bird survey due to the timing of the site visit, howeverthis is not considered to be a significant constraint as the habitat assessment has led to theconclusion that the site is poor for nesting birds, including ground-nesting birds. Similarly, it was

not possible to carry out any bat activity surveys, but this is not considered to be a significantconstraint as the turbine location has been selected to minimise impacts on bats by avoidingsensitive habitats.

Policy and Guidance

4.3 The general methodology adopted within this ecological impact assessment pays explicit regard tothe requirements of, and the advice given in the following documents:

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive);

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and

flora (the Habitats Directive);

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (the

Habitats Regulations, which translates the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive into UK

law);

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended;

Nature Conservation (Scotland ) Act 2004


18/31


Birds

4.7 All birds are protected under Section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended),which makes it an offence to intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird or take damage or destroythe nest while in use or being built or take or destroy an egg. Certain species of bird that are listed

in Schedule 1 of the Act receive additional protection. For these species it is an offence torecklessly disturb the bird while it is on its nest or to disturb the dependant young of such aspecies.

4.8 The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994, The Conservation (Natural Habitats,&c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004are the three key pieces of wildlife legislation that set out the framework for the protection of certainbird species and the habitats that they depend upon in Scotland.

4.9 As previously noted, Section 2(4) of the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 sets out therequirement to publish a list of flora and fauna considered to be of principal importance in Scotland.The published list includes a number of bird species, some of which may be present at theproposed development site (www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk).

Bats

4.10 Bats and their roosts are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended bythe Nature Conservation Scotland Act, 2004), and by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.)Regulations 1994 (as amended in 2007). In summary, this legislation makes it an offence to

damage or destroy any bat roost, intentionally or recklessly obstruct a bat roost, deliberately,intentionally or recklessly disturb a bat or intentionally kill, injure or take any bat.

4.11 Section 1 of the Nature Conservation Scotland Act 2004 states that It is the duty of every publicbody and office-holder, in exercising any functions, to further the conservation of biodiversity so faras is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions. To assist with this objective Section2(4) sets out the requirement to publish a list of flora and fauna considered to be of principalimportance. This list has now been published and includes all species of bat native to Scotland,and the measures required to protect these species and habitats are set out in the documentScotland's Biodiversity: It's in Your Hands - A strategy for the conservation and enhancement of

bi di it i S tl d (S tti h E ti 2004)


19/31


Potential Impacts

4.16 It is proposed to construct a single wind turbine, which will have a hub height of 32.8m with a 47mrotor diameter. The rotor swept area would therefore extend from 9.3m to 56.3m above groundlevel.

Construction Phase Impacts

4.17 The construction phase of the proposed development will involve a number of elements, all ofwhich will have the potential to impact upon the ecological interest of the site. The constructionelements that are most likely to result in an ecological impact include:

Construction of a turbine foundation and crane pad;

Installation of electrical cabling etc;

Establishment of a construction compound and a materials lay-down area; and

Erection and commissioning of the wind turbine.

4.18 The impacts of all of the above construction processes are considered further within this section.

Impacts on Designated Sites

4.19 Lammermuir Deans Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is the only statutory designated wildlife

site located within 2km of the proposed development site: at its nearest point the SSSI isapproximately 1.3km to the south-west of the proposed turbine location. No direct or indirectimpacts are predicted on the SSSI during the construction phase of the proposed wind turbinedevelopment because of the separation distance between the sites.

Impacts on habitats and vegetation

4.20 The turbine will be accessed via the existing access track that runs from Cocklaw farm to thecommunication masts located to the north of the proposed turbine location. It may be necessary toupgrade this track and it will be necessary to construct all other associated infrastructure. The

i f h bi f d i d i d d ill l i h l


20/31


Impacts on birds

4.24 No bird species were recorded within the pasture field where the proposed wind turbine will belocated. Elsewhere jackdaw, magpie, and common gull were the only species recorded withinpasture and arable fields, and these species were present in small numbers. It is considered

unlikely that significant numbers of birds will use the improved grassland for anything other thanoccasional foraging due to the poor quality of the habitat and the likely high levels of disturbanceassociated with grazing etc. Consequently it is predicted that the proposed development will onlyhave a minor impact on birds using the grassland habitat as a result of direct habitat loss anddisturbance arising from the construction process.

4.25 Other birds that were recorded during the survey were associated with the coniferous plantations,which are all more than 280m from the proposed wind turbine location. This habitat will not bedirectly affected by the proposed work, and indirect disturbance impacts are considered to beunlikely due to the distance between the sensitive habitats and the proposed development site.

4.26 Although two BOCC Red Listed species (grey partridge and lapwing) and two Amber Listedspecies (common gull and meadow pipit; Eaton et al., 2009) were recorded during the site visit,none of the recorded species are considered to be particularly sensitive to disturbance arising fromthe proposed development. It is also unlikely that these species will be present, other than on anoccasional basis, in the area where the wind turbine will be constructed (they were all recordedmore than 100m from the proposed wind turbine location).

4.27 It is considered unlikely that high numbers of geese will use the grassland habitats in the vicinity ofthe proposed turbine location. There is likely to be periodic disturbance, either from grazinganimals or associated with farming activities, which may deter geese.

4.28 No geese were recorded during the site visit. The nearest known goose roost sites are at the Firthof Forth SPA, at least 10km north of the proposed wind turbine location. The exact location of anygoose feeding areas near the proposed wind turbine site are not known, but data published on theSouth-East Scotland Bird Atlas website (www.the-soc.org.uk/se-atlas) indicate that pink-footedgeese have not previously been recorded within at least 4km of the proposed wind turbine location.Even assuming that low numbers of geese occasionally fly over the site, it is concluded thatdisturbance arising from the construction of a single turbine will be short-term and temporary in

A hi l i ll l l d i i i h i fli h h id h f


21/31


Operational Phase Impacts

Impacts on habitats and vegetation

4.33 Access to the wind turbine will be via an existing track and, following construction of site

infrastructure, there will not be any further disturbance of vegetation within the site. It is understoodthat the land on which the turbine will be constructed will remain as pasture, and consequentlythere will be no change in land use as a direct consequence of the proposed development. Anychange in land use will take place independently of the proposed development. Consequentlyduring the operation phase of the development there will be no further impact on habitats andvegetation.

Impacts on birds

4.34 It is now widely accepted that operating wind farm developments may adversely affect birds inthree ways (Percival 2000):

Collision with the operating wind turbines or associated structures (such as power lines,

fencing).

Direct habitat loss or disruption from the construction of turbine foundations and access tracks.

Indirect habitat loss through disturbance of areas close to the turbines.

4.35 Examination of the area around the site has led to the conclusion that it is unlikely to be used by

large numbers of key focal bird species or used regularly by such species. Impacts arising fromhabitat loss are discussed in the previous section.

4.36 It is possible that disturbance impacts could extend beyond the area affected by direct habitat loss,as both noise and visual effects may be wider ranging. The maximum distance that wind turbineshave been reported to affect breeding birds is 300m (Percival 2000). However, some studies havefound no disturbance effect at all (e.g. Percival 2000). General disturbance effects (i.e. not justeffects on breeding birds) have been reported for some species (mostly lowland waders and gulls)up to 500m from wind turbines (Percival 2000).

4 37 If di b i i d i h i f h i d bi i i lik l h hi ill l


22/31


4.41 Fernley et al. (2006) looked specifically at geese collision risk, and concluded that a collisionavoidance rate of 99.9% is probably more accurate for geese. The robustness of Fernleysconclusions were questioned in an appraisal carried out by Pendlebury (2006), which observed thatFernley et al. had only used data from four sites and that the estimates were only relevant for onespecies Canada goose Branta canadensis. Nevertheless, this does lend weight to the assertion

that avoidance rates for geese are likely to be higher than the standard 95% figure that is routinelyadopted for other species.

4.42 A review of the effects of wind farms on birds by Hotker et al. (2006) showed that geese typicallyavoid wind farms by distances that range from 250m to 450m and sometimes as far as 850m. Thiswould suggest that geese are likely to avoid the operating wind turbine, reducing the likelihood ofcollision impacts occurring.

4.43 Since the publication of these reports, SNH has concluded that geese do exhibit a higher rate ofavoidance than the precautionary 95% avoidance rate that is typically used for collision risk

assessments. Consequently SNH now advises that a 99% avoidance rate is a suitablyprecautionary figure when assessing collision risk for goose species.

4.44 As extensive flight data are not available for the Dunbar Community wind turbine site, it is notpossible to apply the model to calculate collision risk for geese flying over this site. However, it ispossible to use the model in a theoretical manner to determine how many goose flights would needto take place across the site before an impact is observed. If it is assumed that geese are presentduring the period September to April, that they are active during daylight hours and 25% of thenight period, and that there is a 99% collision avoidance rate, a skein of 30 geese would need to flythrough the rotor swept area 40 times to result in an increase in the mortality rate of one bird perannum. A skein of 30 geese was chosen for this exercise as this is the estimated maximumnumber that could fly through the rotor swept area (47m rotor diameter) with all birds being placedat collision risk. This is based on the assumption that the birds have a wing span of 161cm, whichis the published maximum wing span of pink footed geese (Mullarney et al. 1999).

4.45 Based on the results of the limited field work carried out to date, complemented by the desk studydata that have been compiled, this level of impact is considered to be very unlikely. Overall it isconsidered unlikely that geese will be killed by the operating wind turbine in sufficient numbers tohave an adverse effect on local populations.


23/31


Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures for Habitats

4.51 Construction activities will be managed so that vehicle use on areas outside the working area will

be avoided, thereby minimising the physical extent of any habitat disturbance that takes place.Mitigation measures are proposed as follows:

Movement of tracked or heavy vehicles will be limited to defined site tracks.

The hard-standing area of the proposed turbine will be kept to the minimum necessary,

including all site clearance works, in order to minimise disturbance to flora and fauna.

The turbine foundation will be re-graded with spoil from other site works.

4.52 Good working practices will prevail throughout construction and operation of the development. Allfuels will be kept in bunded areas, thereby minimising the extent of any impacts associated withaccidental spillage.

4.53 Access to the site will be via the existing access track, which may require some upgrading butwhich will ensure that there is no loss of habitat.

Mitigation Measures for Birds

4.54 The following measures are proposed to ensure that impacts on nesting birds are minimised:

Construction operations will take place during the hours of daylight to minimise disturbance to

roosting birds or active crepuscular / nocturnal bird species.

Construction activity will be avoided during the breeding bird season or, if this is not possible,

will only take place once a checking survey has been carried out.

Protection zones will be established around bird nesting sites and these will extend at least

30m from each identified nest site.


24/31


5 Summary

5.1 It is proposed to construct a single wind turbine and associated infrastructure within an area ofimproved grassland pasture near the summit of Cocklaw Hill. The proposed work will result in theloss of a small area of improved grassland habitat that is considered to be of minimal ecologicalinterest: the field has low floristic diversity.

5.2 A limited range of bird species has been identified within the study area, and an assessment of thehabitats within the site has concluded that the site is only likely to support a limited range ofcommon farmland bird species. The few species observed during the walkover survey were mainlyusing trees in the coniferous plantation 280m west and the buildings at Cocklaw farm steading1.6km south-east. The field where the wind turbine will be located is considered to be poor for

nesting birds. The development may potentially result in the disturbance of a small number ofcommon farmland birds, but this is predicted to be a short-term and temporary impact.

5.3 Assessment of the fields around the proposed wind turbine location found no evidence that geesehave been present. Desk study data indicate that the area does not support large numbers of pink-footed and greylag geese. Although no vantage point survey work has been carried out, atheoretical collision risk analysis indicated that the development does not pose a significant risk togeese.

5.4 The development is not predicted to impact upon protected species, including bats. A minimum

280m stand-off has been maintained from the nearest trees or woodland areas or buildings. It isconsidered that the development is in accordance with current best practice guidance (NaturalEngland, 2009).


25/31


6 References

Band, W., Madders, M., and Whitfield, D.P. (2007). Developing field and analytical methods to

assess avian collision risk at wind farms. In: de Lucas, M., Janss, G.F.E. and Ferrer, M. (eds.)Birds and Wind Farms: Risk Assessment and Mitigation, pp. 259- 275. Quercus, Madrid

Bat Conservation Trust (2007). Bat Surveys Good Practice Guidelines. Published by the BatConservation Trust.

Eaton, M.A., Brown, A.F., Noble, D.G., Musgrove, A.J., Hearn, R., Aebischer, N.J., Gibbons, D.W.,Evans, A. and Gregory, R.D. (2009). Birds of Conservation Concern 3: the population status ofbirds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. British Birds 102, pp296341.

Fernley, J., Lowther, S. and Whitfield P. (2006). A Review of Goose Collisions at Operating Wind

Farms and Estimation of the Goose Avoidance Rate. Unpublished Report by West Coast Energy,Hyder Consulting and Natural Research

Htker, H., Thomsen, K.-M. and H. Jeromin. (2006). Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation ofrenewable energy sources: the example of birds and bats - facts, gaps in knowledge, demands forfurther research, and ornithological guidelines for the development of renewable energyexploitation. Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, Bergenhusen.

JNCC (2003). Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Surveys. JNCC

Mullarney, K., Svensson, L., Zetterstrom, D. and Grant, P.J. (1999). Bird Guide.HarperCollinsPublishers Ltd, London.

Natural England (2009). Technical information note TIN059: Bats and single large wind turbines:Joint Agencies interim guidance.

http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/33013?category=34022

Oldham, R.S., Keeble, J., Swan, M.J.S., and Jeffcote, M. (2000). Evaluating the suitability ofhabitat for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Herpetological Journal. 10:143-155

Pendlebury, C. (2006). An appraisal of "A review of goose collisions at operating wind farms andestimation of the goose avoidance rate" by Fernley, J., Lowther, S. and Whitfield, P. BTO ResearchReport No. 455, published by BTO Scotland.


26/31


7 Appendix 1: Desk study data

The Wildlife Information Centre records for protected species recorded within 2km radius of the site

Latin Name Common Name Date Grid Ref. Distance from

the site

Reptiles

Vipera berus Adder 11/08/1995 NT705718 1.5km west

Mammals

Meles meles Eurasian Badger 1970 - 1993 NT736723 1.5km north-east

Birds

Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Accipiter nisus Eurasian Sparrowhawk 1993 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Alauda arvensis Sky Lark 1991 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Anthus pratensis Meadow Pipit 06/05/1993 NT705699 2km south-west

Anthus pratensis Meadow Pipit 1991 NT76J At least 1.5km southArdea cinerea Grey Heron 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard 15/08/1995 NT705718 1.5km west

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Buteo buteo Common Buzzard 1993 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Carduelis cannabina Common Linnet 06/05/1993 NT705699 2km south-west

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch 1991 NT76J At least 1.5km south


27/31


Motacilla albasubsp.

yarrellii

Pied Wagtail 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Parus major Great Tit 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Perdix perdix Grey Partridge 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Periparus ater Coal Tit 1991 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Phylloscopus trochilus Willow Warbler 06/05/1993 NT705699 2km south-west

Regulus regulus Goldcrest 06/05/1993 NT705699 2km south-west

Regulus regulus Goldcrest 1991 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Saxicola rubetra Whinchat 06/05/1993 NT705699 2km south-westTroglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren 30/09/1993 NT712714 700m west

Turdus philomelos Song Thrush 1991 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south

Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing 1992 NT76J At least 1.5km south


28/31

8 Appendix 2: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Map

Dun ar Communit Wind Turbine


29/31


9 Appendix 3: Phase 1 Habitat Survey Target Notes

Target note Description

1 Mature plantation predominantly sitka spruce (18-20m x 0.3-0.4m). Around edge are matureScots pine (18-20m x 0.3-0.4m) and mature oak (18-22m x 0.5-1.2m). Some oak may havemoderate or high bat roost potential.

2 Grass strip approximately 30m wide same species as TN 2.

3 Small incised valley feature with a small stream flowing south. Mixture of mature/semi-matureoak and occ. conifers (spruce) and occ. gorse.

4 Artificial pond (10m x 40m) fenced off. Surrounded by improved grassland with many soft rush

tussocks. Aquatic plants Glyceria fluitans, Callitrichesp. Approximately 10m2

of bullrush atoutlet (eastern end). Frogspawn at eastern end. Old otter spraint at eastern end appears tohave been feeding on mammals and fish.

5 Young mixed plantation (all trees


30/31


10 Appendix 4: Site Photographs

Photo 1: Existing access track adjacent to improved

field where the proposed turbine will be located

Photo 2: Young mixed plantation at TN7, viewed

from the east

Photo 3: Artificial pond at TN6, viewed from the west Photo 4: Open-sided barn at Cocklaw farm steading.

LEGEND


31/31

I I I I

I I

I

I I I I

I I

A

A

A A

A

I

I I I

I I

I I I

I I I

I I

ISI SI

SI SI SI SI SI

SI SI SI

SI

D

D D D

D D D

D D D D

D D

D

D D D

D D

D D

D

D D D

D

SI

SI SI

SI

SI

SI SI

SISI

SI SI I

SI

SI SI

SI SI

SI SI

SI SI

!(

D

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

DD

D

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(6

6

5

4

3

21

ontracts\6001-7000\6001-6100\6084DunbarCommunityWindTurbine\drawingsandplans\BSGdrawings-plans\GIS\Update011012\6084_

MXD_

Phase1_

jw_

011012.mxd

OFFICE:T: 01289 302004

Berwick-upon-Tweed

PROJECT TITLE

DUNBAR COMMUNITY WIND TURBINE

DRAWING TITLE

Appendix 2: Phase 1 habitat survey map

DATE:

DRAWN: APPROVED:

CHECKED:

STATUS:

SCALE:

JOB REF: 6084

FINAL

1:7,500

SB

SB01.10.2012

JW

Copyright BSG Ecology

Nodimensions are tobe scaledfrom this drawing.All dimensions are to be checked on site.Areameasurements for indicative purposes only.

This drawing may contain:Ordnance Survey material by permissionof Ordnance Survey on behalfof the Controller of Her Majestys Stationery Office Crown Copyright 2012.All rights reserved.Reference number:

OS Opendata Crown copyright anddatabase right 2012| AerialPhotography Bing Maps

10048980

Turbine location

Access route

Conifer plantation

Mixed immature plantation

Dense scrub

Scattered scrub

Improved grassland

Marshy grassland

Poor semi-improved grassland

Standing water

Arable

!(

D D D

D D D

I

SI

A

Semi-natural broadleaved woodland

!( Target note1

Documents

DCEco - Habitat Survey